Author
Topic: My predictions of the future (Read 1573 times)

But the rulers have been ordained by God, and so you should pay your taxes without complaint whatever they're doing.

Logged

Quote from: Jordan Duram

It doesn't concern you, Sister, that kind of absolutist view of the universe? Right and wrong determined solely by a single all-knowing, all powerful being whose judgment cannot be questioned and in whose name the most horrendous acts can be sanctioned without appeal?

Quote from: Supreme Court of Canada

Being required by someone else’s religious beliefs to behave contrary to one’s sexual identity is degrading and disrespectful.

Also "Christian morals don't change with time?" Let me answer with the mother of all belly laughs! One word, 'slavery.' Now tell me with a straight face that Christian attitudes to that have remained consistent since your precious Roman Empire.

Slavery was different back then. In the Roman Empire, most of the lower class were slaves and slaves had various jobs. Some were even doctors. They got to live in their master’s house. After a period of work, they could even become Roman citizens. So slavery then was different from the infamous plantation slavery.

And some slaves in plantations had relatively easier jobs in the master's houses, if there's a point hidden in your slavery apologia it's hidden well.

Besides which Christians, at the time used the bible to justify plantation slavery. The Catholic church played a significant role in the Atlantic slave trade and not in opposing it either, here's a handy little timeline and here's a quote from your boy Pope Pius IX in 1866.

Quote

Slavery itself, considered as such in its essential nature, is not at all contrary to the natural and divine law, and there can be several just titles of slavery, and these are referred to by approved theologians and commentators of the sacred canons … It is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or given.

And now we come to the present with our resident Catholic doing the very Catholic thing of sweeping all of that past nasty business under the nearest rug and declaring that they only ever supported a very ancient Roman form of slavery in direct contradiction to centuries of actual Catholic doctrine. Figures.

The plantation slaves that worked in their master’s houses were s minority. The Catholic Church’s role in the slave time was not greater than the role of Protestant countries. And Pope Pius IX’s quote is on slavery in general, not referring to specifically plantation slavery.

Plantation slavery is slavery, the pope didn't care to make a distinction and the side note about the proddies doing it too is irrelevant. The Christian moral stance (Catholic morality being a subset) towards slavery changed over time, hence Christian morality is changeable which the rest of us understand but you won't allow yourself too.

It doesn't concern you, Sister, that kind of absolutist view of the universe? Right and wrong determined solely by a single all-knowing, all powerful being whose judgment cannot be questioned and in whose name the most horrendous acts can be sanctioned without appeal?

Quote from: Supreme Court of Canada

Being required by someone else’s religious beliefs to behave contrary to one’s sexual identity is degrading and disrespectful.

But the rulers have been ordained by God, and so you should pay your taxes without complaint whatever they're doing.

Romans 13 is saying that true power and authority comes from God and it is referring to legitimate authority, not false authority that doesn’t come from God, such as the illegitimate government of the UK.

Also "Christian morals don't change with time?" Let me answer with the mother of all belly laughs! One word, 'slavery.' Now tell me with a straight face that Christian attitudes to that have remained consistent since your precious Roman Empire.

Slavery was different back then. In the Roman Empire, most of the lower class were slaves and slaves had various jobs. Some were even doctors. They got to live in their master’s house. After a period of work, they could even become Roman citizens. So slavery then was different from the infamous plantation slavery.

And some slaves in plantations had relatively easier jobs in the master's houses, if there's a point hidden in your slavery apologia it's hidden well.

Besides which Christians, at the time used the bible to justify plantation slavery. The Catholic church played a significant role in the Atlantic slave trade and not in opposing it either, here's a handy little timeline and here's a quote from your boy Pope Pius IX in 1866.

Quote

Slavery itself, considered as such in its essential nature, is not at all contrary to the natural and divine law, and there can be several just titles of slavery, and these are referred to by approved theologians and commentators of the sacred canons … It is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or given.

And now we come to the present with our resident Catholic doing the very Catholic thing of sweeping all of that past nasty business under the nearest rug and declaring that they only ever supported a very ancient Roman form of slavery in direct contradiction to centuries of actual Catholic doctrine. Figures.

The plantation slaves that worked in their master’s houses were s minority. The Catholic Church’s role in the slave time was not greater than the role of Protestant countries. And Pope Pius IX’s quote is on slavery in general, not referring to specifically plantation slavery.

Plantation slavery is slavery, the pope didn't care to make a distinction and the side note about the proddies doing it too is irrelevant. The Christian moral stance (Catholic morality being a subset) towards slavery changed over time, hence Christian morality is changeable which the rest of us understand but you won't allow yourself too.

Christian morality did not change, it grew stronger as Christians later realized that plantation slavery is morally wrong.

Also "Christian morals don't change with time?" Let me answer with the mother of all belly laughs! One word, 'slavery.' Now tell me with a straight face that Christian attitudes to that have remained consistent since your precious Roman Empire.

Slavery was different back then. In the Roman Empire, most of the lower class were slaves and slaves had various jobs. Some were even doctors. They got to live in their master’s house. After a period of work, they could even become Roman citizens. So slavery then was different from the infamous plantation slavery.

And some slaves in plantations had relatively easier jobs in the master's houses, if there's a point hidden in your slavery apologia it's hidden well.

Besides which Christians, at the time used the bible to justify plantation slavery. The Catholic church played a significant role in the Atlantic slave trade and not in opposing it either, here's a handy little timeline and here's a quote from your boy Pope Pius IX in 1866.

Quote

Slavery itself, considered as such in its essential nature, is not at all contrary to the natural and divine law, and there can be several just titles of slavery, and these are referred to by approved theologians and commentators of the sacred canons … It is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or given.

And now we come to the present with our resident Catholic doing the very Catholic thing of sweeping all of that past nasty business under the nearest rug and declaring that they only ever supported a very ancient Roman form of slavery in direct contradiction to centuries of actual Catholic doctrine. Figures.

The plantation slaves that worked in their master’s houses were s minority. The Catholic Church’s role in the slave time was not greater than the role of Protestant countries. And Pope Pius IX’s quote is on slavery in general, not referring to specifically plantation slavery.

Plantation slavery is slavery, the pope didn't care to make a distinction and the side note about the proddies doing it too is irrelevant. The Christian moral stance (Catholic morality being a subset) towards slavery changed over time, hence Christian morality is changeable which the rest of us understand but you won't allow yourself too.

Christian morality did not change, it grew stronger as Christians later realized that plantation slavery is morally wrong.

"Growing" means "change!"

I guess with enough arrested development that rather obvious point might pass you by.

Also "Christian morals don't change with time?" Let me answer with the mother of all belly laughs! One word, 'slavery.' Now tell me with a straight face that Christian attitudes to that have remained consistent since your precious Roman Empire.

Slavery was different back then. In the Roman Empire, most of the lower class were slaves and slaves had various jobs. Some were even doctors. They got to live in their master’s house. After a period of work, they could even become Roman citizens. So slavery then was different from the infamous plantation slavery.

And some slaves in plantations had relatively easier jobs in the master's houses, if there's a point hidden in your slavery apologia it's hidden well.

Besides which Christians, at the time used the bible to justify plantation slavery. The Catholic church played a significant role in the Atlantic slave trade and not in opposing it either, here's a handy little timeline and here's a quote from your boy Pope Pius IX in 1866.

Quote

Slavery itself, considered as such in its essential nature, is not at all contrary to the natural and divine law, and there can be several just titles of slavery, and these are referred to by approved theologians and commentators of the sacred canons … It is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or given.

And now we come to the present with our resident Catholic doing the very Catholic thing of sweeping all of that past nasty business under the nearest rug and declaring that they only ever supported a very ancient Roman form of slavery in direct contradiction to centuries of actual Catholic doctrine. Figures.

The plantation slaves that worked in their master’s houses were s minority. The Catholic Church’s role in the slave time was not greater than the role of Protestant countries. And Pope Pius IX’s quote is on slavery in general, not referring to specifically plantation slavery.

Plantation slavery is slavery, the pope didn't care to make a distinction and the side note about the proddies doing it too is irrelevant. The Christian moral stance (Catholic morality being a subset) towards slavery changed over time, hence Christian morality is changeable which the rest of us understand but you won't allow yourself too.

Christian morality did not change, it grew stronger as Christians later realized that plantation slavery is morally wrong.

"Growing" means "change!"

I guess with enough arrested development that rather obvious point might pass you by.

1. Is that a goalpost in your Wranglers or are you just pleased to see me?

2. Whenever you "address" anything about your made up God you just make him look more impotent. Now you're saying he's a simple automaton, incapable of creating what he wants to or of possessing free will.

1. Is that a goalpost in your Wranglers or are you just pleased to see me?

2. Whenever you "address" anything about your made up God you just make him look more impotent. Now you're saying he's a simple automaton, incapable of creating what he wants to or of possessing free will.

By saying that an omnipotent, creator of the universe and all it contains can only do evil incidentally and can't create it intentionally.

Might as well be a Rachni drone awaiting orders from the queen!

I never said that he can’t create evil intentionally, he just doesn’t do that because he’s omnibenevolent.

The guy who drowned entire civilizations in a fit of pique? If ya say so!

The bible acknowledges his alleged behavior by acknowledging that he's capable of evil, you reduce him to an unthinking automaton with no choice other than to be benevolent.

In any case it isn't keeping with the way the fictional character of God is described. Petty, inconsistent, tyrannical, cruel and vain.

That's entirely consistent with a character who can create evil and completely out of character for an omnibenevolent being. You're a fiction author who pens fantasies about wizards and magic too, you should know this stuff!

By saying that an omnipotent, creator of the universe and all it contains can only do evil incidentally and can't create it intentionally.

Might as well be a Rachni drone awaiting orders from the queen!

I never said that he can’t create evil intentionally, he just doesn’t do that because he’s omnibenevolent.

The guy who drowned entire civilizations in a fit of pique? If ya say so!

The bible acknowledges his alleged behavior by acknowledging that he's capable of evil, you reduce him to an unthinking automaton with no choice other than to be benevolent.

In any case it isn't keeping with the way the fictional character of God is described. Petty, inconsistent, tyrannical, cruel and vain.

That's entirely consistent with a character who can create evil and completely out of character for an omnibenevolent being. You're a fiction author who pens fantasies about wizards and magic too, you should know this stuff!

I never said that he has no choice other than to be benevolent, I am saying that he chooses to be benevolent. His actions in the Bible are for just reasons. He flooded the Middle East because it was full of Nephillim.

By saying that an omnipotent, creator of the universe and all it contains can only do evil incidentally and can't create it intentionally.

Might as well be a Rachni drone awaiting orders from the queen!

I never said that he can’t create evil intentionally, he just doesn’t do that because he’s omnibenevolent.

The guy who drowned entire civilizations in a fit of pique? If ya say so!

The bible acknowledges his alleged behavior by acknowledging that he's capable of evil, you reduce him to an unthinking automaton with no choice other than to be benevolent.

In any case it isn't keeping with the way the fictional character of God is described. Petty, inconsistent, tyrannical, cruel and vain.

That's entirely consistent with a character who can create evil and completely out of character for an omnibenevolent being. You're a fiction author who pens fantasies about wizards and magic too, you should know this stuff!

I never said that he has no choice other than to be benevolent, I am saying that he chooses to be benevolent. His actions in the Bible are for just reasons. He flooded the Middle East because it was full of Nephillim.

That's right junior, you're being drowned because your neighbour is a dirty giant and won't stop being big.

If he can choose to be benevolent he can choose to be the opposite in any case, as the bible clearly states he does-choose to be an utter cock as is borne out in almost every bible story.

Insomuch as a confused pile of iron-age fables clearly states anything.